Abortion

Last week, we discussed the threat made by leaders of socially conservative organizations to run a third-party pro-life candidate for President if the GOP nominates someone unacceptable to them.  I questioned the wisdom of that strategy, arguing that supporting a third-party candidate is functionally equivalent to supporting the Democratic nominee, and would set back the pro-life movement decades.

Since then, I've had several people email me this Rasmussen poll:

If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say they’d vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that a three-way race with Hillary Clinton would end up with the former First Lady getting 46% of the vote, Giuliani with 30% and the third-party option picking up 14%.

Note that this is not 27 percent of pro-lifers, but 27 percent of all Republicans.

Glock21 pointed to the 2004 exit polls in our previous discussion, and I wanted to look at them for a bit of context, to see how many pro-life voters and how many Republicans voted for the Democratic nominee in 2000 and 2004.  (These are exit polls, so take them with the same huge grain of salt with which you take all polling...)

In 2000, the Democratic nominee got the votes of eight percent of self-identified Republicans and 22 percent of people who agreed that "abortion should always be illegal."

In 2004, the Democratic nominee got the votes of six percent of self-identified Republicans and 22 percent of the people who agreed that "abortion should always be illegal."

I don't really know what conclusions to draw from this, but I do want to emphasize that pro-life voters aren't a monolithic GOP voting block, though sometimes it feels that way.  I know there are a number of pro-life Catholics who are already enthusiastic supporters of Hillary Clinton, for example - they're my Mom and her family, and they will support Hillary over a catholic Rudy Giuliani, if that's the November matchup.

Regardless, I wanted to share the data, because I thought it was interesting.  If that Rasmussen poll is correct, though, it's awfully clear that the person who would benefit most from a generic third-party anti-abortion candidate is the Democratic nominee, which is exactly my point from last week.

Also, Jim Geraghty at TNR's The Campaign Spot blog had this:

This strategist believed that if Rudy Giuliani gets the nomination, he could defuse a lot of the tension on this issue if he picked a staunch conservative with serious street cred in the pro-life community.

The strategist mentioned a conversation with a figure he described as ‘one of the largest Catholic pro-life donors in the country’. “He said, ‘I can’t support Rudy, and I won’t vote for him.’ I asked him, ‘What if he picks Rick Santorum as his running mate?’ Then he said, ‘well, that’s a different story!’”

“If a Rick Santorum or a Mike Huckabee goes to James Dobson and says, ‘look, before I accepted the offer to be his running mate, I looked this man in the eye. I sized him up, and I know he’ll be a help to us. He gets us. And if you sink him, you sink me,’ then how can he go on?”

Then, he noted, religious conservatives weren’t huge fans of George H. W. Bush… until he picked Dan Quayle as his running mate. He pointed out that Bush did himself a world of good not just when he picked Quayle, but when he took on the media’s criticism of Quayle. This strategist said he could easily see a similar scenario, where Giuliani picks a Santorum or Huckabee-type figure; the Katie Courics and Keith Olbermanns of the world rip the nominee, and Giuliani comes out swinging in defense of his pick.

And that's also an excellent point.

Conservative does not equal Republican, and Republican does not equal conservative.  Case in point:

A powerful group of conservative Christian leaders decided Saturday at a private meeting in Salt Lake City to consider supporting a third-party candidate for president if a pro-choice nominee like Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination.

The meeting of about 50 leaders, including Focus on the Family's James Dobson, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, who called in by phone, took place at the Grand America Hotel during a gathering of the Council for National Policy, a powerful shadow group of mostly religious conservatives. James Clymer, the chairman of the U.S. Constitution Party, was also present at the meeting, according to a person familiar with the proceedings.

"The conclusion was that if there is a pro-abortion nominee they will consider working with a third party," said the person, who spoke to Salon on the condition of anonymity. The private meeting was not a part of the official CNP schedule, which is itself a closely held secret. "Dobson came in just for this meeting," the person said.

Now, I certainly don't think such an effort is either warranted or helpful, but I do notice that when a socially conservative candidate wins a Repubican nomination, there's very little talk of this group or that coalition breaking off to run a third-party candidate.

A few quick thoughts.

First, please remember this story when you hear Democrats complain that the Republican Party is completely controlled by social conservatives.  If such were the case, you'd never hear the all-too-often threats about people taking their ball and going home.

Second, a third-party anti-abortion nominee is going to accomplish only one thing - ensuring the election of a pro-choice Democratic nominee.

Third, if people are floating and leaking stories like this just a few weeks after Thompson's announcement, what does that tell us about their perceptions of Thompson's campaign?

Fourth, this really reinforces that the only thing that can screw up 2008 for the Democrats is the Democrats.

Bush got out his veto pen again, killing a bill to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research:

Announcing his veto to a roomful of supporters, Bush said, "If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line."

He vetoed similar embryonic stem cell legislation last July.

And, while we're at it:

Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani have broken with Bush _ and the GOP's social conservatives _ in backing the expansion of federal funding for such research. At the Republican debate on May 3, Giuliani said he supported such an expansion with limits, "as long as we're not creating life in order to destroy it, as long as we're not having human cloning."

This polling data bodes well for Rudy:

Forty-four percent of social conservatives in the Pew analysis believe that the former New York mayor has the "best chance" of becoming president in 2008. Less than half that figure, 19 percent, regard Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) as the most viable, despite twice as many social conservatives stating that McCain “comes closest” to their view on abortion. All other Republican candidates lagged far behind.

These calculations about electability are helping propel Giuliani over McCain among social conservatives, even though the Arizonan shares the opposition of most of these voters to abortion rights.

Giuliani is winning 30 percent of the social conservative bloc, compared to 22 percent for McCain. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney captured just 8 percent — a figure that puts Romney in fourth place, behind former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is currently not a declared candidate.

Emphasis added. 

Read the whole thing:  there's also a spiteful rant from Mike Huckabee.

I'm hopeful that more and more social conservatives will realize that John McCain and Mitt Romney are incapable of winning in November 2008, and that getting Giuliani, even though he's not perfect on every social conservative issue, is much, much better for than getting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. 

Of course, if Fred Thompson or any other viable socially conservative candidate jumps into the race, this "pragmatism" dynamic will change quickly.

I just read an interesting article on Thisislondon.co.uk

Apparently, some babies aren't cooperating during their abortions. According to a recent study, 1 in 30 aborted babies are born alive, some living for hours outside the mother.

Most of the abortions studied were medical abortions. These involve a women being given a series of pills, taken in two doses two days apart.

The first dose, a single tablet of mifepristone, blocks the pregnancy hormones that normally ensure the womb's lining holds on to the fertilised egg. The second dose, of four tablets containing hormone-like prostaglandins, triggers contractions and a miscarriage.

The death of the baby is a result of the trauma of the early birth, rather than the tablets itself, meaning, in rare occasions, some babies may survive the process.

From 22 weeks, the tablets should be preceded by a lethal injection into the baby's heart to ensure the baby is dead before the procedure goes any further.

If these babies are born alive, it suggests they weren't given the heart-stopping injection - perhaps because the doctor thought it would have been too traumatic for the mother. The figures follow several studies which show that babies born at 23 and 24 weeks are capable of surviving.

"Pro-choice" individuals often say that a woman has a right to do what she wishes to her own body. I think it's hard to make that argument when you really appreciate what goes on during an abortion.

Mitt Romney's campaign has been circulating a video online today.  It's his first TV advertisement, schedule to begin airing in early Primary states shortly.  I found it thoroughly unremarkable, other than it's the first aired ad of the GOP Primary. 

There is another Romney video that has gotten my attention though, and this one would have never been viewed widely as recently as a few short years ago.  This is Romney in 2002, while campaigning for Governor of Massachusetts:

I'm not a single-issue voter on abortion - as clearly evidenced by my current support of Rudy Giuliani, who is Pro-Choice* but has overcome my concerns with pledges to appoint constructionist Federal judges. 

Romney's taking multiple positions on fundamental issues, as if the voters are too stupid to realize what he's doing.  He's clearly pandering on the abortion issue, taking one position, quite forcefully and undoubtedly, while campaigning in liberal Massachusetts, and taking the completely opposite stance, just as forcefully, now that he's running in a GOP Primary.

He's associating himself with questionable characters, especially Bob Kjellander, Illinois' Republican National Committeeman and a guy who specializes in putting his own financial interests ahead of building the grassroots GOP.

Watching this video, I just don't know how anyone can take anything he says seriously, knowing that he's probably taking exactly the opposite position at the next event, in front of the next group.

He has no principles, but he's obviously talented, intelligent and ambitious.  To me, he feels just like our version of Hillary Clinton.

EDITED:  *I had originally written that Rudy is Pro-Life before someone corrected me in comments.

Anybody want a "Choose Life" license plate (or any other license plate, for that matter)?

And, for the record, it's awfully inconsistent that the courts rule that specialty license plates are "protected speech," but political messages that mention Federal officeholders aren't.

NRO online has dedicated some space to remembering this anniversary.

One interesting piece is by Deroy Murdock, about Rudy's abortion record.  Murdock's opinion:

Giuliani essentially verbalized his pro-choice beliefs while avoiding policies that would have impeded abortion’s generally downward trajectory.

Hmmmm....... 

Feel free to use this thread to discuss the Roe v. Wade battle, and/or Rudy and his potential for getting votes from pro-lifers.

I guess this shouldn't be too surprising, given Mike Frerichs' earlier pandering on the abortion issue.

At a Tuesday press conference, two leading Chicago politicians joined Frerichs in criticizing Myers' opposition to embryonic stem cell research. However, those criticisms fly in the face of Frerichs' previously stated opposition to that same research.

“Mike used to agree with me on this issue,” Sen. Myers said. “I'm a little surprised he's criticizing me for having the same belief he once held. I think people want a State Senator who is consistent on the issues, and this is just another example of Mike changing his position on a major issue to help himself politically.”
In Question 8 of a 1998 Right to Life questionnaire, Frerichs answered “yes” to the following question: “Would you vote to prevent the use of tissues and organs from deliberately aborted children in transplants or for medical experiments?”

In other words, embryonic stem cell research.

If you don't like Mike Frerichs' position on a particular issue, just wait five minutes.

(DISCLOSURE: I work for Senator Judy Myers' campaign.)

In July, the Senate passed a bill 65-34 that would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of abortion without the knowledge of their parents in order to evade parental notification laws.

Last night, the Senate had a cloture vote to get this bill finalized, and if failed 57-42 (60 votes were needed to end 'debate'). The following Democrats flipped:

Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana)
Senator Thomas Carper (D-Delaware)
Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Senator Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota)
Senator Herbert Kohl (D-Wisconsin)
Senator Ben Nelson (D-Florida)
Senator Ken Salazar (D-Colorado)

I think the facts speak for themselves here.

The Illinois Supreme Court yesterday, after years of delay, released rules regarding parental notification in abortion cases:

Slightly more than 24 hours after the Illinois Supreme Court announced it would write rules allowing an 11-year-old abortion law to take effect, it issued those rules.

The law would require abortion providers to notify a family member of any underage girl seeking an abortion 48 hours before the procedure is performed. The law would not require the relative's consent.

The rules issued Wednesday say a girl afraid to tell family members could ask a judge to waive the notice requirement. If a judge rules against her, she could quickly appeal to the appellate court, then the state Supreme Court, with a court-appointed lawyer. No oral argument would be heard.

"I take my hat off to our chief justice, who moves pretty quickly," said attorney Tom Brejcha, who represents anti-abortion groups that favor the law.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lorie Chaiten said the rules appeared suddenly, without going through the court's usual process of public comment. She said she hopes to block the attempt to revive the 11-year-old law.

The ball is now in Attorney General Lisa Madigan's court. Eleven years ago, when the law passed, then-Attorney General Jim Ryan, an abortion opponent, asked the court to draft the rules. A federal judge blocked the law from taking effect because the state Supreme Court would not issue the rules.

Former State Rep. Cal Skinner, though, thinks this law and these rules are all flash and no substance.  His post is titled "Ten Ways to Avoid Telling Your Parents You're Pregnant Under House Bill 955."

We noted on this blog over a month ago, Mike Frerichs has been cozying up to the pro abortion folks.  In yesterday's News-Gazette, Tom Kacich goes straight to Frerichs and gets his new position, or at least part of it.  We have no indication from the Kacich article what Frerichs now feels about parental notification and partial birth abortion, however, since Personal PAC is so committed to his race, we can assume that he's lined up with them, at least for this election.

Kacich also muddies the issue in a way.  Interestingly, when he wrote about the money of Emil Jones, he failed to note that Frerichs had received $10,000 from Jones less than two years ago.  Some on this blog dismissed that as unimportant because that was a different race.  Now, Kacich reaches back to Frerichs first race for positions, when he could just as easily have gone back to Frerichs positions when he first announced.  Here is how the NG reported it last fall.

Frerichs said he favors parental notification laws for women under age 18 seeking an abortion and opposes the so-called partial-birth abortion procedures.

This is not a change in position from 8 years ago, it's a change from 12 months ago.

Of course, most of us saw this coming.  Frerichs' principles, to the extent he has them, would never get in the way of his ambition.  He saw Democrats abandoning him and figured he had to do something to stem the bleeding.

What was shocking, is that Frerichs used such an offensive anecdote to help explain his change.

One that stood out, he said, was a discussion with "an older Catholic woman who said that you're not to stop them, they're just going to be more dangerous" if government tries to impose more restrictions on abortions.

As a serious minded Catholic who believes, supports, and follows the teaching of the church on abortion, I'm astounded that he would actually use a Catholic woman to support his new found position on abortion.  Did he have to bring up the fact that she was Catholic?  What did that accomplish?  Is he trying to point out the divisions that exist on this issue, even within the Catholic Church?  That's well and good, but it seems like the debate on this from a Catholic view point is well left to Catholics and doesn't need his input.  (Frerichs is Lutheran)  Frerichs is following in the media line that many Catholics find very offensive: find a single Catholic "leader"  (Richard McBrien is on the speed dial of all the major news networks) who will oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church, and make it sound like it represents mainstream views of the church.

Mike, I'm sorry your "older Catholic woman" feels that way.  I'm more sorry though that you used her as an example.

Mike Frerichs is 6'8" and still growing. If his ever-changing position on abortion keeps growing he will be like Dick Durbin, who is one of the most strident pro-choice politicians in the country but who used to be pro-life when he was a congressman from very pro-life Springfield.

In 2000, Frerichs ran against Chub Conner for the Democratic State Representative nod. He had this quote in the News-Gazette.

"It stems from my fundamental belief in the sanctity of human life,"

That very very pro-life position was reiterated in this NG article as well as this one.

Then in 2005, as he launched his bid to be State Senator, he began to "grow" a little. Instead of being pro-life he now held a position summarized in this way by the News-Gazette.

Asked if he opposes abortion generally, Frerichs said Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land.

That alone was enough to convince most people that Frerichs was making the politically opportunistic switch to being pro-choice. But two new items suggest that the switch is full scale.

First, in the most recent campaign disclosures, Frerichs reports receiving a contribution from the Women's Health Practice, one of two abortion providers in Champaign-Urbana.

Second, Frerichs website now lists Personal PAC as an endorser. Personal PAC makes no bones about the fact that abortion is their ONLY issue. And they have a record of not compromising on the issue. For example, Judy Baar Topinka is largely considered pro-choice by any reasonable observer. That doesn't prevent Personal PAC from excoriating her on their website, largely because of her moderate positions on government funding of abortions. I've also always understood that Personal PAC would not support candidates who support parental notification laws.

Personal PAC's issues page gives plenty of evidence of their very strident positions on abortion. For example, here is how they address parental notification. (Mike Frerichs purportedly favors parental notification.)

Teen endangerment laws require teenagers to get consent from their parents or to give them notice prior to an abortion.

Teen endangerment laws? And this group is endorsing Mike Frerichs?

Personal PAC's website says that their members will be getting a voter guide about a month prior to the election. It would be a lot better to see it now. If any members out there can secure a copy and want to send it along, I'll get it posted on this site.

It will also be interesting to see if pro-choice activists like Esther Patt and Ruth Wyman, who have been conspicuously absent from the list of Frerichs endorsers, show up on his website now.

This was brought up in an open thread yesterday, but I think it deserves its own.

It is being reported Bush will veto a bill authorizing expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.  A couple interesting thoughts from the Foxnews story:

Although many in the religious right are passionately opposed to stem cell research, most Americans support it, and Bush risks alienating that majority in the critical midterm year.

"Their opposition to stem cell research is outside the American mainstream, so they want to give themselves political cover by voting for two meaningless bills," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "It's a playbook straight from the Republican Orwellian world of politics."

The press (yes, even Foxnews aided by AP in this story) and the Dems continue to use "stem cell" as a synonym for "embryonic stem cell" - they blurr the argument with this sloppy use of language.

I applaud Bush for this veto (assuming he will really do it), and am disappointed in the GOP Congress for passing it.  Harry Reid very well may be right - and that pains me to say.

As Catholic Democrats in Congress, we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose.

We are committed to making real the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social teaching: helping the poor and disadvantaged, protecting the most vulnerable among us, and ensuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country. That commitment is fulfilled in different ways by legislators but includes: reducing the rising rates of poverty; increasing access to education for all; pressing for increased access to health care; and taking seriously the decision to go to war. Each of these issues challenges our obligations as Catholics to community and helping those in need.

We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion””we do not celebrate its practice. Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term. We believe this includes promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children=s healthcare and child care, as well as policies that encourage paternal and maternal responsibility.In all these issues, we seek the Church=s guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience. In recognizing the Church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas. Yet we believe we can speak to the fundamental issues that unite us as Catholics and lend our voices to changing the political debate -- a debate that often fails to reflect and encompass the depth and complexity of these issues.

As legislators, we are charged with preserving the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Catholics, but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths. We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties.

As Catholic Democrats who embrace the vocation and mission of the laity as expressed by Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici, we believe that the Church is the "people of God," called to be a moral force in the broadest sense. We believe the Church as a community is called to be in the vanguard of creating a more just America and world. And as such, we have a claim on the Church's bearing as it does on ours.

For the fun of it, if anyone chooses to comment on this document, consider identifying your religion or lack thereof.

John

Tony Snow writes an interesting piece today.

http://jewishworldreview.com/tony/snow031006.php3

I don't think many people are giving the S.D. law much of a chance, but you never know. Pro-choice forces should be at least a little nervous.

(I don't want to get into a big abortion debate with this post - this is more about the reporting.)

Last night on the Channel 15 news, they did a big piece on Planned Parenthood passing out Morning-After pills at the U of I.  What got my attention was the reporter saying the pill could prevent pregnancy for up to 5 days after intercourse.

There was no mention that many people don't consider it prevention of pregnancy, but an abortion.  Or any mention of the people who have died after taking these pills.

I expected better reporting from Channel 15. 

Rumors are circulating right now that State Sen. Steve Rauschenberger will not run for Governor, but will instead shift to some other spot on the ticket, with speculation centering on a run for Lieutenant Governor as the second fiddle to Ron Gitwitz.

Rich Miller at Capitol Fax, as usual, is all over it.

If it's true, it's another in a stunning series of political miscalculations by Rauschenberger, who, in my estimation at mid-summer was a viable dark-horse candidate for Governor.  Since then, he's fought an embarassing battle against suggestive t-shirts, and has been attacking Treasurer Judy Baar Topika daily since she entered the race.

I don't understand how either Gidwitz or Rauschenberger can think this helps either of them.  Gidwitz, who is considered a moderate, has spent millions on bad television advertising and been unable to break out of the single digits in most polls.  Rauschenberger is usually considered more conservative but is really just pandering, has been unable to gain any traction despite a respectable third-place finish in last year's US Senate Primary,  I can't imagine any of Rauschenberger's supporters would jump with him to the pro-choice Gidwitz.  And I don't understand how being the running mate for someone who will likely finish fourth in the Primary helps Rauschenberger.

This is a stunningly stupid move by both candidates.

UPDATE:  This is an interesting comment from Capitol Fax:  "If Raushy is the LG candidate, he will win even if his running mate Gidwitz does not win the primary. This means that the GOP could potentially be running with a Topinka/Rauschenberger ticket in the general election, which I believe would be very competitive." 

But how could he run with someone he's been calling Topinkajevich for the past three weeks?

Newly announced candidate for Governor (and current Treasurer) Judy Baar Topinka (Ugh - her website is so bad it hurts to link to it...) is catching some heat from the left and the right for some ambiguity on the abortion issue.

Abortion rights leaders pressured Judy Baar Topinka on Tuesday to take a tougher stance on the hot-button issue on the eve of her announcement of her candidacy for governor.

The groups said the Republican state treasurer should clarify her stand on abortion rights when she officially throws her hat in the ring today for the March 2006 GOP primary.

Topinka and business executive Ron Gidwitz both support abortion rights but with some conditions, which are of concern to Planned Parenthood and Personal Political Action Committee members. All the other Republican candidates have said they do not support abortion rights, according to Personal PAC president and CEO Terry Cosgrove.

"[Today's] announcement gives Judy Baar Topinka the ability to set the record straight -- to formally announce her position on choice once and for all," Planned Parenthood Votes Illinois chairman Pam Sutherland said.

Campaign spokesman Dave Loveday said Topinka has always believed in a woman's right to choose but she supports parental notification and a ban on late-term abortions.

I've always taken it for granted that she is adamantly pro-choice.  I'm encouraged that she actually supports some restrictions.  And that statement by her spokesman seems pretty definitive, although if she's had an evolving position on such an important issue, I'd have questions about how the sincerity of her convictions.

Patrick Ruffini is trying to reassure me (and others) about SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers.  Of particular comfort is this passage:

But, as usual, quite possibly the most important perspective comes from Hugh Hewitt, who posits that Miers would be particularly strong in the area of national security jurisprudence. Having been "present at the creation" in the war on terror, not cooped up in isolated Circuit Court chambers or rarefied law school classrooms, a Justice Miers would be unlikely to let Jose Padilla roam the streets, or open up the gates of Gitmo. Folks – that's at least as important as the social issues.

The national security issues are, for me, much more important than the social issues.